Get commissions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and dynamic nature are covered. The description adds the scope of 'Korean and US stock' but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format, rate update frequency, or cost calculation nuances. With annotations present, this modest addition warrants a mid-range score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and immediately specifies the resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., whether it returns a list or grouped objects), but for a simple commission schedule retrieval tool, the description is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without needing parameter elaboration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'applicable Korean and US stock trading commission schedules'. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on orders, prices, candles, or market data, none related to commissions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when commission schedules are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since no sibling tool covers commissions, the context is implicitly clear, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.